States Receive Poor Marks for Teacher-Quality Standards

On a first-ever report card of its kind, 13 out of 20 states earned
a grade of C or lower for the quality of the standards they have set to
assess whether teachers now in the classroom have adequate knowledge of
subjects they teach.

The report from the National Council on Teacher Quality sees the
D-plus average of the 20 grades as one more sign that many states are
reluctant to deal with the content part of the teacher-quality
equation. But the paper also puts some of the blame on the federal No
Child Left Behind Act, which thrust on states the politically charged
task of designing ways to hold experienced teachers to the same
content-knowledge standard as new ones.

The results, according to the report, range from standards that set
an unambiguous bar—mostly by insisting on coursework similar in
amount to that required for new teachers—to ones that make use of
teacher evaluations neither designed for nor strong in assessing
academic-content knowledge.

"This is such a unique and wonderful opportunity to take on a very
serious problem," said Kate Walsh, the president of the
Washington-based council. "But right now, all I can conclude is that
… the chance in the majority of states that the [experienced]
teachers who are clearly weak will be identified and helped is very
low."

The council is a prominent backer of alternative routes to
certification and helped found the controversial American Board for
Certification of Teacher Excellence, which has produced a test that
could be used for licensure.

Illinois on Top

To be deemed "highly qualified" under the 2-year-old federal law,
teachers must hold a standard license and prove they know the subjects
they teach. But states can give teachers who were already in the
classroom by the start of 2002 options for demonstrating knowledge that
aren’t available to new teachers.

Veteran teachers may, if their states allow, forgo tests or
coursework amounting to a major if they pursue the HOUSSE option, for
"high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation."

The report examines the variety of pathways that experienced
teachers may take to the "highly qualified" designation.

Taking home the single A grade was Illinois, which requires teachers
to have passed about eight half-year courses in a content area to be
deemed highly qualified under the law.

Oregon, Alabama, Ohio, and Kentucky rated B’s. New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Georgia, New Hampshire, Maryland, and North Carolina got
C’s. And Tennessee, West Virginia, New York, and Louisiana barely
passed with D’s.

Many states in the middle range are instituting systems that award
varying numbers of points for professional activities, ranging from
writing a textbook to years in the classroom.

Michigan, Virginia, California, and South Carolina flunked,
generally for having too many options of insufficient rigor, according
to the authors. Idaho drew an "incomplete" because it relies on its
certification system alone for guaranteeing that experienced teachers
have adequate subject- matter knowledge. Future papers will look at the
remaining states.

While states take the brunt of the paper’s criticism, the
authors also fault the U.S. Department of Education as doing too little
to gain the support of teachers, many of whom have complained that the
new requirements are demeaning or insulting.

Law Misunderstood

Raymond J. Simon, the department’s assistant secretary for
elementary and secondary education, acknowledged that the law’s
provision requiring highly qualified teachers was one that has been
widely misunderstood.

"To correct that, [Secretary Rod Paige] has begun a number of
outreach efforts," Mr. Simon said. He added that the department has had
and will continue to have "some strong advice where plans are not
rigorous enough."

Meanwhile, the California education official who has overseen the
development of that state’s HOUSSE standard, vigorously protested
the F that California received in the report. "There’s a clouding
political agenda [there], which I think is to degrade any kind of
credentialing," said Jean Treiman, of the state education
department’s professional-development division. She defended the
state’s requirements, which build on the existing licensing
system and do a rigorous, if qualitative, job of testing for
subject-matter knowledge, she said.

"You’re pretty exposed as a teacher if you are observed five
times on content," one of the ways teachers can earn points that drew
criticism in the report, Ms. Treiman contended.

Vol. 23, Issue 32, Page 21

Published in Print: April 21, 2004, as States Receive Poor Marks for Teacher-Quality Standards

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.